The Court of First Instance No. 8 of Murcia has sentenced BBVA to pay 5,977 euros, plus legal interest, to a client who was the victim of a telephone scam. It considers that the banking operations that led to the theft of the money were executed incorrectly and without valid authorization from the affected party, and therefore the entity is responsible.
According to the ruling of September 25, 2025, the client received an SMS that appeared to be official and which indicated that her card had been blocked for security reasons. Shortly after, she received a call from a supposed bank employee, who convinced her that someone was trying to make a fraudulent charge and suggested she make a transfer to a “secure account” in her name, within the same bank. This account had actually been created by the scammers and was controlled by them
You may be interested
BBVA opens a job board with a permanent contract for senior profiles and interns: there is an option for teleworking
BBVA’s takeover bid for Banco Sabadell fails by achieving 25.47% acceptance of the shares
The client, believing she was following instructions from an employee, made two transfers, even receiving verification codes sent from BBVA’s own numbers. However, he soon found that he could not access his account or recover the funds.
After realizing the deception, he contacted the bank requesting the cancellation of the operations, but by then the money had already been withdrawn by the scammers, and the entity claimed that the transfers had been made voluntarily and they had no responsibility whatsoever.
There were serious deficiencies in BBVA’s security system
The Court of First Instance No. 8 of Murcia, according to articles 43 and 45 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018, ruled out that there was serious negligence on the part of the user, considering that she acted in good faith in a very elaborate context of deception. The ruling highlights that the affected party did everything possible to verify the authenticity of the call and the SMS, which came from official channels.
In addition, serious deficiencies were observed in BBVA’s control system by allowing an account to be opened in the client’s name without verifying her real identity and that no signs of a suspicious operation were detected, such as an internal transfer with a beneficiary other than the owner. He also considered the bank’s response insufficient, which did not diligently respond to urgent blocking requests.
The resolution cites jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (STS 571/2025), which obliges the bank to immediately return money from unauthorized operations, unless there is proof of serious negligence on the part of the user. In this case, he understood that the consent given was invalid because it was an action carried out under deception.
For all this, it ordered BBVA to return the 5,977 euros, along with the legal interest from the date of the charge, and to pay the procedural costs. The sentence was not final and can be appealed before the Provincial Court of Murcia.